(PS) Howell v. Douglas et al.

Filing 12

ORDER staying issuance of Civil Case Documents and Summons and transferring case to Sacramento Division signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 3/12/2019. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
13

KAREEM J. HOWELL,

14

Case No. 1:18-cv-00422-LJO-SKO

Plaintiff,

15

v.

16

ORDER STAYING ISSUANCE OF
CIVIL CASE DOCUMENTS AND
SUMMONS AND TRANSFERRING
CASE TO SACRAMENTO DIVISION

WILLIAM J. DOUGLAS,

17

Defendant.
_____________________________________/

18
19
20

This case was filed on March 28, 2018, by Plaintiff Kareem J. Howell, a state prisoner then-

21

housed at CSP-Corcoran, proceeding pro se with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

22

1983.1 The action was designated at case opening as a “prisoner conditions-of-confinement” case.

23

On April 3, 2018, the court issued an order striking the Complaint based on Plaintiff’s failure to

24

sign the Complaint, with leave to file an amended complaint bearing his signature. (Doc. 8.) On

25

May 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint bearing his signature. (Doc. 10.)

26

On November 13, 2018, the previously-assigned magistrate judge found that the action based

27

on the First Amended Complaint was no longer a prisoner conditions-of-confinement case and

28

1

Plaintiff was recently transferred back to CSP-Sacramento. (See Docket.)

1

ordered the Clerk of Court to re-designate the action as a “regular civil case” (the “Re-designation

2

Order”). (Doc. 11.) The Re-designation Order also directed the Clerk to “[r]andomly assign this

3

case to another magistrate judge” and to “[i]ssue all applicable standing orders, scheduling orders,

4

and process.” (Id.) The case was thereafter re-designated and assigned to the undersigned.

5

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(a) and 1915(e)(2), Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is

6

subject to an initial review, or screening, to determine whether it is legally sufficient under the

7

applicable pleading standards prior to service of the First Amended Complaint on Defendant.

8

Accordingly, the Re-designation Order shall be stayed to the extent it directs the Clerk to issue

9

applicable civil case documents and summons, to allow for screening of the First Amended

10

Complaint. The undersigned further finds that the case should be transferred to the Sacramento

11

Division.

12

Pursuant to Rule 120(f) of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern

13

District of California, a civil action which has not been commenced in the proper court may, on the

14

Court’s own motion, be transferred to the proper court. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint names

15

California Deputy Attorney General William J. Douglas, located in the Sacramento Office of the

16

California Attorney General, and alleges claims for breach of contract and “obstruction of justice”

17

based on a settlement agreement entered into in Howell v. Andrichak, Case No. 2:15-cv-00792-

18

WBS-KJN, a case adjudicated in the Sacramento Division. (See Doc. 10.) Plaintiff’s complaint

19

contains no allegations that mention any incidents occurring in, or any connection whatsoever to,

20

the Fresno Division. Rather, Plaintiff alleges Defendant presented a settlement agreement to him

21

while a prisoner at CSP-Sacramento, which Plaintiff signed, and then failed to comply with the

22

terms of that settlement agreement and defrauded Plaintiff into voluntarily dismissing his lawsuit

23

that was pending in the Sacramento Division.2 In view of these significant connections to the

24
25
26
27
28

2

The undersigned takes judicial notice, see Fed. R. Evid. 201(b), that on January 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion in
Howell v. Andrichak to reinstate his case based on allegations substantially similar as those made in the First Amended
Complaint. (See Doc. 43.) The assigned magistrate judge in Howell v. Andrichak recommended that Plaintiff’s motion
to reinstate be denied for lack of federal jurisdiction and a failure to demonstrate fraud. (See Doc. 47.) On June 5,
2018—after he filed the operative complaint in this case—Plaintiff filed notice in Howell v. Andrichak that he would
be” pursuing his claims in state court.” (See Doc. 51.)

2

1

Sacramento Division and lack of connections to the Fresno Division, this case should be transferred

2

to the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California.

3

Accordingly, good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1.

The order filed November 13, 2018, re-designating this action (Doc. 11) is STAYED

5

to the extent it directs the Clerk of Court to issue applicable civil case documents and

6

summons, to allow for screening of the First Amended Complaint;
2.

7

This case is TRANSFERRED to the Sacramento Division of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California; and

8
2.

9

All future filings shall refer to the new Sacramento case number assigned and shall
be filed at:

10

United States District Court
Eastern District of California
501 “I” Street, Suite 4-200
Sacramento, CA 95814

11
12
13
14 IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
Dated:
16

March 12, 2019

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

.